Case 3:15-cv HSG Document 37 Filed 10/26/16 Page 1 of 22

Transcription

1 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Robert S. Green, (SBN ) James Robert Noblin (SBN ) GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C. 00 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 0 Larkspur, CA Telephone: () -00 Facsimile: () -0 gnecf@classcounsel.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs [Additional counsel listed on signature page] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 KRISTIN HALEY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, vs. Plaintiffs, MACY S, INC., et al. Defendants. Case No. :-cv-00-hsg (Consolidated with: :-cv-0-hsg, :-cv-00-hsg, and :-cv-0-hsg) CLASS ACTION CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT FOR:. Violation of the UCL;. False Advertising; and. Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 Plaintiffs Kristen Haley, Todd Benson, Zohreh Farhang, Job Carder and Erica Vinci, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege the following based upon personal knowledge as to allegations regarding themselves, and on information and belief and the investigation of counsel as to all other allegations: I. INTRODUCTION. This is a class action seeking monetary damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendants Macy s, Inc. and Macy s West Stores, Inc. (collectively Macy s ) and its wholly-owned division, Bloomingdale s, Inc. ( Bloomingdale s ) arising from their deceptive and misleading labeling and marketing of merchandise they sell at their retail stores, including outlet stores, in California and throughout the United States.. During the Class Period (defined below), Defendants (hereinafter Macy s or Defendants ) misrepresented the nature and amount of price discounts on products sold in their regular and outlet Macy s and Bloomingdale s stores (the Stores ) by purporting to offer steep discounts off of fabricated and false former or purported original or regular prices.. Specifically, Defendants represented on price tags, sales labels or on signs above the merchandise (hereinafter product price tags ) of their products, both those sold under the Macy s or Bloomingdale s labels and those manufactured by other designers or companies sold in Macy s and Bloomingdale s stores, prices that were artificially inflated and did not represent a bona fide price at which they previously sold such products. Defendants then offered, on the same price tags, to sell the items for a purportedly reduced or discounted sale price, which supposedly represented a significant discount off of the false original or regular price. In some instances, they represented that the listed or original price was two or more times the manufacturer s suggested retail price ( MSRP ), and then offered the item at a purported 0% or more discount price which was in fact the original MSRP.. However, the original or regular prices utilized by Defendants, which represented to consumers the purported actual sales price of Defendants products, whether manufactured under their label or the label of other designers or companies, were a sham. In fact, such items were not generally sold at the original or regular price listed on their labels --

3 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of 0 in a substantial number, on a regular basis for a reasonable period, or within 0 days of the advertised or represented original or regular price. The original or regular price listed on Defendants products were and are prices chosen by Defendants to enable them to engage in their phantom markdown scheme.. The Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) has described the fictitious pricing scheme such as that employed at Defendants stores as deceptive: (a) (i) Many members of the purchasing public believe that a manufacturer's list price, or suggested retail price, is the price at which an article is generally sold. Therefore, if a reduction from this price is advertised, many people will believe that they are being offered a genuine bargain. To the extent that list or suggested retail prices do not in fact correspond to prices at which a substantial number of sales of the article in question are made, the advertisement of a reduction may mislead the consumer. It bears repeating that the manufacturer, distributor or retailer must in every case act honestly and in good faith in advertising a list price, and not with the intention of establishing a basis, or creating an instrumentality, for a deceptive comparison in any local or other trade area. For instance, a manufacturer may not affix price tickets containing inflated prices as an accommodation to particular retailers who intend to use such prices as the basis for advertising fictitious price reductions. C.F.R.. (emphasis added). 0 --

4 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of. Macy s pricing scheme was effectuated in several systemic ways as reflected on the following sales tags and signs prominently displayed for products available for sale at its stores:

5 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0. Thousands of Defendants consumers, including Plaintiffs, were victims of Defendants deceptive, misleading and unlawful false pricing scheme. This deception will continue if Defendants are not enjoined from continuing to effectuate their pricing scheme.. Defendants fraudulently concealed from, and intentionally failed to disclose to, Plaintiffs and Class members, the true facts about its product prices and falsely advertised price discounts from those purported original or regular prices. Defendants false representations of prices and false representations of purported savings, discounts and bargains are objectively material to a reasonable consumer.. Defendants false pricing scheme has and will continue to impact the essence of each transaction and precludes Plaintiffs and Class members from making fully informed purchase decisions based upon the actual bona fide price for a product. 0. Plaintiffs objectively relied upon such false representations of original or regular prices and discounts when purchasing merchandise from Macy s Stores. Plaintiffs would not have made such purchases, or would not have paid the amounts they did, but for the false representations of the original or regular price of the item purchased, as compared with the supposedly discounted or sale price at which Plaintiffs purchased the items.. Plaintiffs believed the truth of the represented prices attached to, or in advertisements or on signage regarding, products purchased at Defendants Stores, which expressly represented that Plaintiffs were getting discounts. In fact, however, they were not getting the represented discounts. Plaintiffs would not have purchased the items but for the discounted pricing represented by Defendants.. Through their false and deceptive marketing, advertising and pricing scheme, Defendants violated and continue to violate laws prohibiting advertising goods for sale as discounted from purported former prices that are false. The Defendants used fabricated original or regular prices which did not reflect a price at which the Defendants products are routinely, if ever, sold to retail customers. --

6 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of. As a result of the Defendants misconduct, they should be enjoined from continuing to make misleading statements concerning the existence and amount of price reductions. II. PARTIES A. Individual and Representative Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Kristin Haley is a citizen, who at all times material, was a resident of 0 0 Somona County, California.. Plaintiff Todd Benson is a citizen, who at all times material, was a resident of San Diego, California. California. California. California.. Plaintiff Zohreh Farhang is a citizen, who at all times material, was a resident of. Plaintiff Job Carder is a citizen, who at all times material, was a resident of. Plaintiff Erica Vinci is a citizen, who at all times material, was a resident of B. Defendants. Defendant Macy s, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio. 0. Defendant Macy s West Stores, Inc., is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio.. Defendant Macy s operates 00 stores in states under names including Macy s, Bloomingdale s and Bloomingdale s Outlets, with approximately stores in California.. Defendant Bloomingdale s is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Macy s, Inc. and a division of Macy s with its principal place of business in New York, New York. Defendant Bloomingdale s, at the direction and control of Defendant Macy s, operates Bloomingdale s stores throughout the U.S (the Bloomingdale s Stores ), including Bloomingdale s Outlet stores (the Bloomingdale s Outlets ). --

7 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of. At all times material, Macy s has sold in its Stores men s, women s and children s apparel, accessories and home furnishings. Macy s has engaged in a program of deceptive marketing, sales and pricing practices throughout its Stores including in its Macy s division, Bloomingdale s. III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. This Court has original jurisdiction of this action under the Class Action Fairness 0 Act of 00. Pursuant to U.S.C. (d)() and (), this Court has original jurisdiction because the aggregate claims of the members of the putative Class exceed $ million, exclusive of costs, and at least one of the members of the proposed Class, Plaintiffs, are citizens of a different state than each Defendant.. The Northern District of California has personal jurisdiction over Defendants Macy s and Bloomingdale s because they are authorized or registered to do business and operate stores in this District where Defendants employed, and continue to employ, the sale tactics detailed herein.. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to U.S.C., because Defendants operate many stores and thus transact substantial business within this District. IV. ADDITIONAL SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS. On January, 0, Plaintiff Farhang entered a Macy s store in Century City, 0 California to look for an area rug. She saw merchandise advertised with price tags that represented an original price next to a significantly reduced sale price. Enticed by the idea of paying significantly less than the original prices charged by Macy s, Plaintiff was induced to purchase an area rug with a reported $,000 original price. She paid $,, plus tax for the rug (a total of $,.).. By purchasing the area rug at significantly less than the purported original price, Plaintiff was led to believe that she saved over $,000, or % of the purported original price. In reality, Macy s did not sell the area rug at the represented original price in a substantial number on a regular basis for a reasonable period, and $,000 was not the prevailing price of --

8 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 that item within the three month period immediately preceding January, 0. Plaintiff Farhang was deceived by the false price comparison into making her purchase.. Two days after she purchased the rug from Macy s, Plaintiff Farhang took the rug to a rug store where she learned that the actual retail market value of the rug was approximately $00 to $00, rather than the $,000 represented by Macy s. But for Macy s misrepresentations about the pricing of the rug, Plaintiff would not have purchased it. Plaintiff contacted Macy s through its website and by bringing the rug back to the store for a refund, but was rebuffed or ignored in each instance. Plaintiff disputed the charge for the rug through the American Express system, and Macy s rejected the dispute demanding that Plaintiff pay the full amount. 0. In December 0, Plaintiff Haley purchased products, including a Lenox holiday ornament that Macy s claimed was originally priced at $0.00 for $. from a Macy s store located in San Rafael, California. According to Macy s advertising, Ms. Haley received a purported savings of approximately 0% off the original price. However, the product purchased by Ms. Haley was not previously sold in a substantial number or on a regular basis for a reasonable period at Macy s for $0.00. Additionally, the original price was not the prevailing market price within the three months preceding the date of Ms. Haley s purchase. In 0, Ms. Haley also purchased a dress based upon Macy s deceptive scheme of selling prices based upon discounts from a fictitious advertised original price. Ms. Haley did not use her Macy s credit card to make said purchase. Ms. Haley has also purchased other products which were represented to be sold at a discount of the original price listed on their labels, but were not actually sold at the original price within ninety days of the advertised or represented original price.. Plaintiff Benson is a regular shopper at Macy s and has been for several years. Mr. Benson has been induced to purchase items from Macy s because of purported in-store discounts. On one such occasion, in February of 0, Mr. Benson was shopping at Macy s in the Westfield Mission Valley mall in San Diego. There, enticed by the idea of paying significantly less than the represented original price, Mr. Benson was induced to purchase an --

9 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 INC International Concepts Men s V-Neck Multi-Media Long-Sleeve Shirt. Macy s represented that this shirt was originally priced at $.0, but that the in-store price was $., a purported % discount. However, based on information and belief, the product purchased by Mr. Benson was not previously, or at least not in a substantial number, or on a regular basis for a reasonable period, sold at Macy s for $.0. Additionally, the original price was not the prevailing market price within the three months preceding the date of Mr. Benson s purchase. In fact, the product that Mr. Benson purchased, continued to be offered at a % discount more than a year after his purchase. Plaintiff Benson was deceived by and relied on Macy s false price comparison, as reflected on the sales tag and in-store signage, and was damaged as a result. Plaintiff Benson would not have purchased the shirt had he known the shirt was not actually priced at a discount.. In reliance on Macy s false and deceptive advertising, marketing and pricing schemes, Plaintiff Carder purchased products including several Maison Jules and Club Room items, including items purchased May, 0 at Macy s Pasadena Plaza on Lake Avenue. For example, Macy s advertised the original price of one Maison Jules item as $.0 (the same price was memorialized on Mr. Carder s purchase receipt). Based on the representations and advertisement of the original price of $.0, Mr. Carder was induced to make his purchase. He paid $. believing the original price represented and marketed by Macy s was $.0 and that this was a time sensitive substantial price reduction. Indeed, Mr. Carder s receipt reflects the original price, the Today's Price. Macy s advertising and representations misled Mr. Carder into believing that Macy s price was significantly lower than the prices at which Macy s regularly offered the items Mr. Carder purchased. The actual price of the item, as well as the prevailing market price, in the example provided was not $.0 during the three months preceding its purchase by Mr. Carder. Macy s advertised original, or regular prices do not reflect the price at which Macy s products are routinely, if ever, sold to retail customers, nor do they reflect the prevailing market price within the three-month period preceding the purchase. But for Macy s false and misleading statements, Mr. Carder would not have purchased the --

10 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page 0 of 0 0 Maison Jules item or other seemingly drastically reduced items that day. Mr. Carder was damaged as a result thereof.. In reliance on Macy s deceptive advertising, marketing, sales tactics and pricing schemes, and unfair business practices, Plaintiff Vinci was induced to purchase numerous clothing items represented to be upwards of over 0% off the original or regular prices. For example, in or about February 0, Macy's indicated that the "original" price of a sports clothing item Ms. Vinci purchased was $0.00, but it was purported reduced to "Today's Price" of $.00, and an additional % coupon discount was offered on the date of purchase to bring the price down to $.00 before taxes. The prevailing market price for the item, in the example provided, was not $0.00 during the three months preceding its purchase by Ms. Vinci. Macy s advertised original, or regular prices do not reflect the price at which Macy s products are routinely, if ever, sold to retail customers, nor do they reflect the prevailing market price within the three-month period preceding the purchase. Ms. Vinci was damaged as a result thereof.. California statutory and regulatory law expressly prohibits false former pricing schemes. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 0, entitled Value determinations; Former price advertisements, states: For the purpose of this article the worth or value of anything advertised is the prevailing market price, wholesale if the offer is at wholesale, retail if the offer is at retail, at the time of publication of such advertisement in the locality wherein the advertisement is published. No price shall be advertised as a former price of any advertised thing, unless the alleged former price was the prevailing market price as above defined within three months next immediately preceding the publication of the advertisement or unless the date when the alleged former price did prevail is clearly, exactly and conspicuously stated in the advertisement.. The Defendants false pricing scheme was objectively material to Plaintiffs and to Class members and affected all of their purchase transactions. Marketing studies have noted that retailers are incentivized to engage in this false and fraudulent behavior: Comparative price advertising offers consumers a basis for comparing the relative value of the product offering by suggesting a monetary worth of the product and any potential savings [A] comparative price advertisement can --

11 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 be construed as deceptive if it makes any representation, or involves any practice that may materially mislead a reasonable consumer. By creating an impression of savings, the presence of a higher reference price enhances subjects perceived value and willingness to buy the product Thus, if the reference price is not truthful, a consumer may be encouraged to purchase as a result of a false sense of value. Comparative Price Advertising: Informative or Deceptive?, Dhruv Grewal and Larry D. Compeau, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol., No., at, - (Spring ).. Plaintiffs would purchase Defendants products in the future from Defendants Stores and/or other retail establishments, if product labels accurately reflect original or regular prices and discounts. Currently, however, Plaintiffs and other consumers have no realistic way to know which if any of Defendants label price comparisons are not false or deceptive. If the Court were to issue an injunction ordering Defendants to comply with comparative price advertising laws, and prohibiting use of the deceptive practices discussed herein, Plaintiffs would be able to make informed purchase decisions for Defendants products at Defendants Stores. CLASS ALLEGATIONS. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the members of the proposed Class under Rule (a), (b)(), (b)(), and/or (c)() of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposed Class consists of the following: All individuals residing in California who, within the Class Period, purchased from one of Defendants Stores one or more products advertised at a discount off of the stated original or regular price, and who have not received a refund or credit for their purchases.. The Class Period is January, 0 through the date of judgment. Plaintiffs reserve the right to redefine the Class prior to certification after having the opportunity to conduct discovery.. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, any entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest, and all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their immediate family members. -0-

12 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of 0. Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. (a)(). The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder is impractical. The Class consists of thousands of members, the precise number which is within the knowledge of and can be ascertained only by resort to Defendants records.. Commonality. Fed. R. Civ. P. (a)() and (b)(). There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class. Among the questions of law and fact common to the Class are: 0 (a) (b) Whether, during the Class Period, Defendants used false price representations and falsely advertised price discounts on their merchandise sold at Defendants stores; Whether Defendants use of false or deceptive price advertising constituted false advertising under California law; 0 (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Whether Defendants engaged in deceptive, unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices under California law; Whether Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose material facts about their product pricing and discounts; Whether Defendants have made false or misleading statements of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions; Whether Class members are entitled to restitution, and in what amount; and Whether Defendants are likely to continue using false, misleading or illegal price comparisons such that an injunction is necessary.. Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. (a)(). Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class and, like all members of the Class, Plaintiffs purchased goods from one of Defendants Stores that falsely conveyed an original or regular price and a fictitious discount. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic to the interests of any other member of the Class.. Adequacy. Fed. R. Civ. P. (a)(). Plaintiffs are representatives who will fairly and adequately assert and protect the interests of the Class, and retained counsel experienced in --

13 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 prosecuting class actions. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are adequate representatives and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.. Superiority of Class Action. Fed. R. Civ. P. (b)(). A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this lawsuit, because individual litigation of the claims of all members of the Class is economically unfeasible and procedurally impracticable. While the aggregate damages sustained by the Class are in the millions of dollars, the individual damages incurred by each member of the Class resulting from Defendants wrongful conduct are too small to warrant the expense of individual lawsuits. The likelihood of individual Class members prosecuting their own separate claims is remote, and, even if every member of the Class could afford individual litigation, the court system would be unduly burdened by individual litigation of such cases.. The prosecution of separate actions by members of the Class would create a risk of establishing inconsistent rulings and/or incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants. Additionally, individual actions may be dispositive of the interests of the Class, although certain class members are not parties to such actions.. Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. (b)(). The conduct of Defendants is generally applicable to the Class as a whole and Plaintiffs seek equitable remedies with respect to the Class as a whole. As such, the systematic policies and practices of Defendants make declaratory or equitable relief with respect to the Class as a whole appropriate.. Issue Certification. Fed. R. Civ. P. (c)(). In the alternative, the common questions of law and fact, set forth in Paragraph, are appropriate for issue certification on behalf of the proposed Class. COUNT I Unfair Business Practices (California Business & Professions Code 00, et seq. Unfair Competition Law ( UCL )). Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege by reference each and every allegation above as if set forth herein in full. --

14 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0. The UCL defines unfair business competition to include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent act or practice, as well as any unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Advertising or promotional practices are unlawful under the UCL if a reasonable consumer is likely to be deceived by them.. Defendants violated the unfair prong of the UCL by representing false, deceptive, or misleading original and regular prices and corresponding price discounts or savings for merchandise where Defendants, inflated and fabricated the purported original and regular prices for such products, and failed to disclose to consumers that such original and regular prices were inflated or fabricated, such that the promised discount or saving was false, misleading or deceptive.. These acts and practices were unfair because they caused Plaintiffs, and were likely to cause reasonable consumers, to falsely believe that Defendants are, and have been throughout the Class Period, offering discounts or bargains from the actual, bonafide former or original price. As a result, purchasers, including Plaintiffs, reasonably perceived that they were receiving products that regularly sold in the retail marketplace at substantially higher prices (and were, therefore, worth more) than what they paid. This perception has induced reasonable purchasers, including Plaintiffs, to buy such products which otherwise they would not have purchased.. Plaintiffs and Class Members are likely to be deceived by Defendants use of fictitious original or regular prices on the price tags of merchandise at Stores in California.. In deciding to purchase merchandise at Defendants stores, Plaintiffs were unaware of Defendants misleading and deceptive representations regarding original or regular prices. These prices placed by Defendants on the price tags of merchandise at their California stores played a substantial role in Plaintiffs decisions to purchase the products they purchased from Defendants, and Plaintiffs would not have purchased those items in the absence of Defendants unfair practices. --

15 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0. The gravity of the harm to Class Members resulting from these unfair acts and practices outweighs any conceivable reasons, justifications or motives of Defendants for engaging in such deceptive acts and practices. By committing the acts and practices alleged above, Defendants engaged in unfair business practices within the meaning of the UCL.. Through their unfair acts and practices, Defendants improperly obtained money from Plaintiffs and all other Class Members. As such, Plaintiffs request that this Court cause Defendants to restore this money to Plaintiffs and all Class Members, and to enjoin Defendants from continuing to violate the UCL as discussed herein and from violating the UCL in the future. Otherwise, Plaintiffs, Class Members, and members of the general public may be irreparably harmed or denied an effective and complete remedy if such an order is not granted. COUNT II Fraudulent Business Practices (California Business & Professions Code 00, et seq.). Plaintiffs incorporate and by reference each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.. A business act or practice is fraudulent under the UCL if it is likely to deceive members of the consuming public.. Defendants false prices, including their original or regular prices placed on the price tags of the products sold in their Stores, were fraudulent within the meaning of the UCL because they deceived Plaintiffs, and were likely to deceive reasonable consumers and Class Members, into believing that Defendants were offering discounts or bargains from bona fide original and regular prices. As a result, purchasers, including Plaintiffs, reasonably perceived that they were receiving products that regularly sold in those stores or the retail marketplace at substantially higher prices (and were, therefore, worth more) than what they paid. This perception induced reasonable purchasers, including Plaintiffs, to buy such products from Defendants Stores in California, which they otherwise would not have purchased. --

16 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of Defendants acts and practices as described herein deceived Plaintiffs and were highly likely to deceive reasonable members of the consuming public. Specifically, in deciding to purchase merchandise at Defendants Stores, Plaintiffs objectively relied on Defendants misleading and deceptive representations regarding their supposed original or regular prices. The original or regular prices placed by Defendants on the price tags of merchandise at Defendants Stores in California were false and impacted Plaintiffs decisions to purchase those products, and Plaintiffs would not have purchased those items in the absence of Defendants misrepresentations. Plaintiffs suffered monetary loss as a direct result of Defendants fraudulent practices described herein.. As a result of the conduct described above, Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs and all other respective Class Members. Specifically, Defendants have been unjustly enriched by obtaining revenues and profits that they would not otherwise have obtained absent their false, misleading or deceptive conduct.. Through their fraudulent acts and practices, Defendants improperly obtained money from Plaintiffs and all other respective Class Members. As such, Plaintiffs request that this Court cause Defendants to restore this money to Plaintiffs and all Class Members, and to enjoin Defendants from continuing to violate the UCL as discussed herein or from violating the UCL in the future. Otherwise, Plaintiffs, the respective Class they seek to represent, and members of the general public may be irreparably harmed or denied an effective and complete remedy if such an order is not granted. COUNT III Unlawful Business Practices (California Business & Professions Code 00, et seq.). Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege by reference each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.. A business act or practice is unlawful under the UCL if it violates any other law or regulation. --

17 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0. The Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce and specifically prohibits false advertisements. ( U.S.C. (a)() and U.S.C. (a)). The FTCA has established Guidelines which prohibit false pricing schemes, similar to Defendants pricing scheme in material respects, as deceptive practices that would violate the FTCA quoted in paragraph.. Cal. Civ. Code 0(a)(), prohibits a business from [m]aking false or misleading statements of fact concerning reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions.. Defendants use of and reference to materially misleading, deceptive, and/or false original or regular prices on the price tags of merchandise sold to consumers in Defendants California stores violated and continues to violate the FTCA, U.S.C. (a)() and U.S.C. (a), as well as FTC Pricing Guides. It also violated and continues to violate Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 00 and 0, and Cal. Civ. Code 0(a)(), by advertising false comparative prices that were, in fact, not the prevailing market prices at other retailers in the marketplace at the time of the publication.. As a result of the conduct described above, Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs and other Class Members. Specifically, Defendants have been unjustly enriched by obtaining revenues and profits that they would not otherwise have obtained absent their false, misleading and deceptive conduct.. Through their unfair acts and practices, Defendants fraudulently obtained money from Plaintiffs and all other respective Class Members. Plaintiffs request that this Court cause Defendants to restore this money to Plaintiffs and all respective Class Members they seek to represent, and to enjoin Defendants from continuing to violate the UCL, or from violating the UCL in the future. Otherwise, Plaintiffs, the Class they represent, and members of the general public may be irreparably harmed or denied an effective and complete remedy if such an order is not granted. --

18 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 COUNT IV Violation of the California False Advertising Law, (California Business & Professions Code Sections 00, et seq.) 0. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege by reference each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.. California s False Advertising Law ( FAL ) prohibits unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, including false statements as to worth, value and former price.. The FAL makes it unlawful for a business to disseminate any statement which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading.. Defendants practice of disseminating allegedly original or regular prices associated with their merchandise, which were materially greater than the prices they were sold at or the true prevailing prices of those products, as alleged more fully herein, was an unfair, deceptive or misleading advertising practice because it gave the false impression that the products were sold by Defendants in a substantial amount sold or on a regular basis for a reasonable period, at those prices or in the retail marketplace at substantially higher prices (and were, therefore, worth more) than they actually were.. On each day throughout the Class Period, Defendants, with the intent to induce members of the public to purchase products offered at their respective California stores, made or caused to be made each of the untrue or misleading statements, claims, or representations described herein.. On each day throughout the Class Period, Defendants, with the intent to induce members of the public to purchase products offered at their respective California stores, made or caused to be made untrue or misleading claims to consumers throughout California.. Defendants knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that these claims were untrue, deceptive, or misleading.. When Defendants made or caused to be made the untrue or misleading claims, statements, or misrepresentations described herein to consumers in California, Defendants failed to adequately disclose the facts pleaded herein. Plaintiffs request that this Court cause --

19 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 Defendants to restore this money to Plaintiffs and all other respective Class Members, and to enjoin Defendants from continuing to violate the FAL, or from violating the FAL in the future. Otherwise, Plaintiffs, the Class they seek to represent, and members of the general public may be irreparably harmed and/or denied an effective and complete remedy if such an order is not granted. COUNT V Violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (California Civil Code 0, et seq.). Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege by reference each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.. Defendants, with the intent to induce members of the public to purchase products, offered at their respective California Stores, made or caused to be made false or misleading claims to consumers throughout California. 0. Plaintiffs and Class Members are consumers within the meaning of California Civil Code (d).. Defendants sale of merchandise at its respective Stores in California to Plaintiffs and other Class Members are transactions within the meaning of California Civil Code (e).. The merchandise purchased by Plaintiffs and other Class Members at Defendants respective stores in California throughout the Class Period are goods within the meaning of California Civil Code (a).. Defendants engaged in unfair methods of competition, or unfair or deceptive acts or practices against Plaintiffs and Class Members in violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (the CLRA ), by making false or misleading statements of fact concerning the reasons for, the existence of, or the amount of price reductions for products sold to Plaintiffs and Class Members at Defendants California Stores throughout the Class Period. Defendants provided false, deceptive, or misleading original or regular prices on the price tags of the merchandise sold in their respective California Stores, and compared those false or --

20 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page 0 of 0 0 misleading comparative prices to the prices at which Defendants sold their merchandise, to give the illusion to consumers that they were receiving a discount, or achieving a saving or bargain. The promised discounts, savings, or bargains, however, were deceptive, misleading, or false.. The price reductions alleged by Defendants and Defendants sale prices did not exist, and were false, deceptive, or misleading.. Defendants acts or practices described herein are in violation of California Civil Code 0(a)().. As a result of Defendants acts or practices described herein, Plaintiffs and other respective Class Members have been harmed in that Defendants unlawful, false or misleading acts or practices described herein played a substantial and material role in each respective Plaintiffs and Class Members decisions to purchase products at Defendants Stores in California. Absent these acts or practices, Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have purchased the products that they did from Defendants.. Pursuant to California Civil Code 0(a)(), Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all Class Members, request that this Court enjoin Defendants from continuing to engage in the unlawful and deceptive methods, acts or practices alleged herein. Unless Defendants are permanently enjoined from continuing to engage in such violations of the CLRA, California consumers will continue to be harmed by Defendants acts or practices in the same way as those acts or practices have harmed Plaintiffs and Class Members.. Plaintiffs provided notice to Defendants of the alleged violations of the CLRA and the UCL.. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages, equitable and injunctive relief, punitive damages and costs and attorneys fees. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Class demand judgment against Macy s, Inc., Macy s West Stores, Inc. and Bloomingdale s, Inc., as follows: --

21 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of 0 A. An order certifying that this action may be maintained as a class action, that Plaintiffs be appointed Class Representatives and Plaintiffs counsel be appointed Class Counsel; B. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs and all members of the Class damages as alleged above incurred by Plaintiffs and Class members as a result of Defendants unlawful, deceptive, unfair and fraudulent business and trade practices described herein; C. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs and all members of the Class restitution or other equitable relief, including, without limitation, disgorgement of all profits and unjust enrichment that Defendants obtained from Plaintiffs and the Class as a result of their unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices described herein; D. An order enjoining Defendants from continuing to violate the laws as described herein. E. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs the costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys fees, and pre and post-judgment interest; and F. Such other and further relief as may be deemed necessary or appropriate. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury. JURY DEMAND 0 DATED: October, 0 GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C. By: /s/ Robert S. Green Robert S. Green James Robert Noblin 00 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 0 Larkspur, CA Telephone: () -00 Facsimile: () -0-0-

22 Case :-cv-00-hsg Document Filed 0// Page of 0 DATED: October, 0 DATED: October, 0 Kenneth G. Gilman, Fla. Bar No. 0 GILMAN LAW LLP Bonita Beach Rd, S.E., Suite Bonita Springs, FL Telephone: ()-0 Facsimile: ()0-0 kgilman@gilmanlawllp.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Haley and Farhang FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP By: /s/ Rosemary M. Rivas Rosemary M. Rivas (State Bar No. 0) California Street, Suite 00 San Francisco, California Telephone: () -00 Facsimile: () -0 rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Benson -and- MARTINEZ CHARLES LLP By: /s/ Michael C. Martinez Michael C. Martinez (Bar No. 0) 0 Mark Charles (Bar No. ) 00 South Lake Avenue, Suite 0 Pasadena, CA 0 Telephone: () -0 Facsimile: () -0 mmartinez@martinezcharles.com mcharles@martinezcharles.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Carder and Vinci ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE -(i)() This certifies, pursuant to Local Rule -(i)(), that all signatories to this document concur in its content and have authorized this filing. --